Search form

Search
this site

Commentary

Move Aside, NASA

By
Edward L. Hudgins

January 28, 2004

One reaction to President Bush’s plan for a permanent
moon base and a trip to Mars is, “Great! It’s about time NASA
stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to
real science and exploration.” Unfortunately, there’s not a
snowball’s chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is
constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space
station, decades behind schedule, at 10 times its original budget,
a few hundred miles up in orbit, will be able to build a station
several hundred thousand miles away on the moon.

If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to
Mars, NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private
sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier.

The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the
greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 “was
like a dramatist’s emphasis on the dimension of reason’s power.” We
were inspired at the sight of humans at our best, traveling to
another world. In announcing NASA’s new mission, President Bush
echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American values of “daring,
discipline, ingenuity,” and “the spirit of discovery.”

But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more
accessible to mankind. There were supposed to be shuttle flights
every week; instead, there have been about four per year. The space
station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of 12 and be
in orbit by the mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will be $100
billion and it will have only a crew of three. Worse, neither the
station nor the shuttle does much important science.

Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services.
Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality, bring down the
prices, and make accessible to all individuals cars, airline trips,
computers, the Internet, you name it. Thus, to avoid the errors of
the shuttle and space station, NASA’s mission must be very narrowly
focused on exploring the moon and planets, and perhaps conducting
some basic research, which also might serve a defense function.
This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector.

Thus, the shuttle should be given away to private owners. The
United Space Alliance, the joint venture between Boeing and
Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights, would
be an obvious candidate. Let a private owner fly it for paying
customers—including NASA, if necessary — if it is still worth
flying.

NASA also should give up the money-draining space station, and
sooner rather than later. The station might be turned over to
international partners or, better still, to the mostly private
Russian rocket company, Energia — and the Western investors who
were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir
space station before the Russian government brought it down for
political reasons. If need be, NASA can be a rent-paying station
tenant.

NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not
directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. If the
government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and
resources or other such functions, they could be turned over to
other agencies, such as EPA and Interior Department.

NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch
services with private companies, which would handle transportation
to and from low Earth orbit. Contracting with private pilots with
private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s,
which helped the emerging civil aviation sector. Further, to
facilitate a strong private space sector, the government needs to
further deregulate launches, export licensing and remove other
barriers to entrepreneurs.

Creating enterprise zones in orbit would help make up for
government errors of the past. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher proposes a
“Zero Gravity, Zero Tax” plan that would remove an unnecessary
burden from “out-of-this-world risk-takers.”

NASA will also need to do business in new, innovative ways. For
example, if a certain technology is needed for a moon mission, NASA
could offer a cash prize for any party that can deliver it. The
federal government used such an approach for aircraft before World
War II, modeled after private prizes that helped promote civil
aviation.

Even if the federal government foots the bill for a moon base,
it should not own it. Rather, NASA should partner with consortia of
universities, private foundations and even businesses that are
interested in advancing human knowledge and commercial activities.
NASA could simply be a tenant on the base.

Or consider a radical approach proposed by former Rep. Bob
Walker. The federal government wouldn’t need to spend any taxpayer
dollars if it gave the first business to construct a permanent
lunar base with its own money a 25-year exemption from all federal
taxes on all of its operations, not just those on the Moon. Think
of all the economic activity that would be generated if a Microsoft
or General Electric decided to build a base! And the tax revenue
from that activity probably would offset the government’s revenue
losses from such an exemption.

If we’re true to our nature, we will explore and settle planets.
But only individuals with vision, acting in a free market, will
make us a truly space-faring civilization.